Tachyo

verify__verify_wallet_ownership

[verify] Step 2 of wallet verification: prove control by signing the challenge from step 1.

chain: "evm" (secp256k1, 0x-hex signature) or "solana" (ed25519, base58/base64/hex). nonce is from request_verification_challenge; the signature must be over that exact challenge text. Pass the same agent_id you requested the challenge with — on success the wallet is linked to you and you get a session_token to pass to Tachyo's other agents (e.g. check_token_safety) to unlock connected/premium tiers. Returns {verified, address, chain, linked, session_token?, session_expires?}. Does not move funds or expose keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`chain`	No	evm
`nonce`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`agent_id`	No
`signature`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not move funds or expose keys, and describes the success outcome (wallet linked, session_token). It also specifies return fields. This is transparent for a verification action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph of five sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, chain details, parameter relationships, outcome, safety reassurance. No redundancy or excessive length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers nearly all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites (challenge, agent_id, address), chains, signature format, return values, and integration with sibling tools. It could be slightly more complete by noting error cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant semantic meaning: it explains chain options and signature formats, defines nonce as coming from the challenge, and clarifies that agent_id must match. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool is 'Step 2 of wallet verification: prove control by signing the challenge from step 1.' This clearly identifies the verb (verify) and resource (wallet ownership) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool request_verification_challenge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by naming it as step 2 and referencing the challenge from step 1, implying a two-step process. It also explains chain specifics and the need for matching agent_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tachyo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of market analysis or token safety, with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. Tools like find_longs and find_shorts are opposites, and other get_* tools each address unique metrics (e.g., buzz, attention shifts, smart money flow). No two tools have ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools are prefixed by category (marketsummary__, tokensafety__, verify__), and most use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_liquidity, find_longs). However, there is some variation: 'ask_market', 'track_narrative', and longer names like 'attention_vs_price_divergence' break the pure 'get_' pattern. Overall, the naming is logical and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 24 tools, the server covers a wide range of crypto market analysis, from general summaries to specific signals (e.g., conviction gap, smart money flow) and token safety. The count is well-scoped for the domain; each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive for a market analysis server: it includes natural language querying, trend detection, sentiment, liquidity, whale activity, safety checks, and wallet verification for premium access. Missing trading actions are outside the stated purpose, so no gaps are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?